. . . who is prepared to respect to jury system as part of our judicial system. From my perspective, if Trump is acquitted, so be it. The prosecution has the burden of proof and if they do not meet it, Trump is entitled to walk. On the other hand, if he is convicted, I suspect the whining, bitching and moaning will reach an ear throbbing crescendo.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
. . . who is prepared to respect to jury system as part of our judicial system. From my perspective, if Trump is acquitted, so be it. The prosecution has the burden of proof and if they do not meet it, Trump is entitled to walk. On the other hand, if he is convicted, I suspect the whining, bitching and moaning will reach an ear throbbing crescendo.

Whatever the result is, bitching will come.

Your socks so polarized it just has to happen.

I am perfectly happy with whatever verdict as long as it passes appellate review.

I do have some concern regarding making a misdemeanor into a felony for something so legally questionable (the “influencing an election” is a crime part especially in light of the lawyers saying lying in a civil case is privileged.)

I will respect the jury's decision whatever way it goes. My only concern is that if Trump is found guilty all it will do is make his cult members rally behind him even more. For whatever reason the more Trump gets into trouble the more people appear to like him so Trump may come out of this a convicted felon that is even more popular than before. Figure that one out???

Take a wild guess Mike. Will they reach a decision by the weekend?

The trumptards will respect the decision as long as trump is acquitted. If not, they won't.

I also agree that a conviction will make him even more popular with the cult members.

And, I'd guess that if there's no decision by tomorrow afternoon, maybe Friday, they're hung.

I dont know if I heard the judges directions correctly.
Some of it seemed screwy to me. Is there a place to read his instructions?

You wonder where all the concern about the fairness of the system, corrupt judges, the deck being stacked against the defendant, the unfairness of the charges, where is all that concern when the defendant is a young black man being prosecuted in Alabama? Put the Orange Jesus on trial and suddenly the justice system is a witch hunt, the charges are contrived, the process is a sham and the deck is stacked, the judges are all biased and corrupt, the process is a persecution. Maybe the Trumplicans will become champions of criminal justice reform now. I would not hold my breath.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
You wonder where all the concern about the fairness of the system, corrupt judges, the deck being stacked against the defendant, the unfairness of the charges, where is all that concern when the defendant is a young black man being prosecuted in Alabama? Put the Orange Jesus on trial and suddenly the justice system is a witch hunt, the charges are contrived, the process is a sham and the deck is stacked, the judges are all biased and corrupt, the process is a persecution. Maybe the Trumplicans will become champions of criminal justice reform now. I would not hold my breath.

I think that is all part and parcel of the Trump cult that Trump facilitates. He rants and raves about how bad everything is to him and thus plays the role of the victim real well and people just eat that up and follow him even more. I think Trump is an idiot, but I will give him credit that he sure knows how to manipulate his followers.

. . . I view it more as a failing of his followers than a virtue enjoyed by Trump.

quote:

I think Trump is an idiot, but I will give him credit that he sure knows how to manipulate his followers.

"Idiot" isn't the right word, IMO re Trump. It may be descriptive of his followers, however.

Farter Martyr. How can that be translated into virtue?

One would think it's impossible and improbable, but of course that's the Trump magic to transform, bend, reality, twist it with pure fabrication from his mind.

It's a phenomenon, not a virtue.

Trump(ism) is like a surprise rogue wave, a tsunami, surging on a beach party full of mostly naked women in bikinis, messing everything up.

quote:

Originally posted by theback40:
I dont know if I heard the judges directions correctly.
Some of it seemed screwy to me. Is there a place to read his instructions?

I have them downloaded, but not sure how to upload a PDF file here.

Funny, Your Twitter post does not provide any law to refute the prosecution’s position.

Thus, it is meaningless.

Find me a NY Appellate Court case that says the position is incorrect.

Let the whining and ululating begin in earnest. Not like the law was passed to nail Trump. The law has been on the books for a while. Don’t like the law, don’t do business or live in NY and thereby subject yourself to the jurisdiction of the courts there. Do business or live in NY and engage in acts prohibited by their criminal laws . . . be prepared to pay the price. Don’t be a cry baby.

There is no requirement to show that a crime was committed, only an intent to commit a crime. Your Twitter poster could avoid looking like a fool if he would just take the time to read the very short statute.

NY Penal Law 175.10
A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.

Falsifying business records in the first degree is a class E felony.

Andy McCarthy was a prosecutor in the Southern district of NY for a career. He might understand what is going on.

Just like in the words of Roy Cohn (also a NY prosecutor): “Don’t find me a law…find me a judge.” Merchan was that toady for Bragg.

Your Twitter friend worked for Giuliani and left the DOJ more than two decades ago. Old and cold as they say. The common thread on all your trusted legal advisors . . . they are Fox News contributors. Shocking.

If you cheer that mockery of law on, true lawfare, you have a warped view of law and order.

That case is a true example of one political party using (abusing) their power (stretching it at that) within the system to hurt a political opponent. It is nothing else. Own it and remember that what goes around usually comes around. It is not a good thing.

It is easy.

Give us a case that says the prosecution’s position on the law is incorrect or be quiet.

That^^^is for you “lawyers” to search.

As Mike Jines if noted for saying multitudes of times in the near 20 years I have known him: “Just because it is legal doesn’t make right (ethical).”

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
That^^^is for you “lawyers” to search.

As Mike Jines if noted for saying multitudes of times in the near 20 years I have known him: “Just because it is legal doesn’t make right (ethical).”

]


Are you talking about the trial, or screwing the porn star while married? Or cooking the books? Or trying to steal the election?

So many unethical options to choose from when you are speaking about Trump.

That MAGA ARSEHOLE has been a criminal all his life!

LOCK HIM UP!

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
That^^^is for you “lawyers” to search.

As Mike Jines if noted for saying multitudes of times in the near 20 years I have known him: “Just because it is legal doesn’t make right (ethical).”

No, it is on you.

You proffered the position with no authority to support it. It is your responsibility.

Between you and I, I am the only one who has provided caselaw for my legal positions on this forum.

Pony up or shut up.
NY state court caselaw is what controls what is right when applying NY criminal code.

If your experts are do good, have the ability to make such statements, they should be spoon feeding you the castle for those positions.

Otherwise, your experts are not even giving an opinion. They are simply misleading.

The trial was a mockery and shining example of lawfare. It should scare people. If you advocate for such own it.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
Andy McCarthy was a prosecutor in the Southern district of NY for a career. He might understand what is going on.

Just like in the words of Roy Cohn (also a NY prosecutor): “Don’t find me a law…find me a judge.” Merchan was that toady for Bragg.

Speakin a Roy Cohn this is borrowed from another source.

article in the NYT on roy cohn's mentorship of djt:

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/28/opin ... court.html

Final paragraph:

"Of all the lessons Mr. Trump learned from his mentor, the value of treating people transactionally may have been the most important. The former president has run through countless lawyers in his decades of legal proceedings. Many were discarded. Some were not paid. But he held Mr. Cohn in high regard and took his lessons to heart. In 1981, he gave his mentor a pair of huge diamond cuff links as a gesture of profound gratitude. Years later, a friend of Mr. Cohn’s had them appraised. They were worthless fakes."

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:


The trial was a mockery and shining example of lawfare. It should scare people. If you advocate for such own it.

Wasn't the same law used to nail him over trump University? Where is/was all of the outrage over that?

He'll go down in history for a lot of things, many of them are nothin to be proud of.

. . . we are starting to see who the real "sheeple" are, you know the folks that allow the media to manipulate them and then send them off to parrot cute little phrases like "lawfare". Pawns.

Yep…you are a good example of a sheeple if you cannot see that trial as a bastardization of the law and our system of justice — it is clearly an example.

quote:

Originally posted by ANTELOPEDUNDEE:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:


The trial was a mockery and shining example of lawfare. It should scare people. If you advocate for such own it.

Wasn't the same law used to nail him over trump University? Where is/was all of the outrage over that?

He'll go down in history for a lot of things, many of them are nothin to be proud of.

No

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:


The trial was a mockery and shining example of lawfare. It should scare people. If you advocate for such own it.

So, to clarify, Dr. Easter’s experts have provided no legal authority. Dr. Easter is not able to produce any legal authority.

At this point, I am willing to accept the prosecution’s position is an accurate statement of the law.

I would not have brought this prosecution. However, I have seen nothing that the prosecution is inappropriate.

The Appellate Courts will inform of if any issues of law were applied incorrectly, so as to warrant setting aside a potential conviction.

In conclusion, Dr. Easter’s study and review of the legal issues presented in this case has provided no legal authority for his adopted positions from Twitter hacks.

The difference now is that previous cases about his fraud were civil, with guilty findings or settlements.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/0....html?smid=url-share

https://abcnews.go.com/US/judg...ps/story?id=54347237

We already know he's a fraud in legal and political and a decent person aspects, etc. So, when we have a case in court dealing with fraud again but this time felony, what's the difference except the sentence?

Finding him guilty of misdemeanors under the law — Section 17-152 of the state’s election code would be too easy, with little consequence.

Finding he falsified records with intent to deceive while running for office, and taxes BTW, is a bit harder, but I admire the DA and prosecution for the balls to try the case.

And furthermore - Trump's CFO is serving time. Cohen, his fixer, served time. And he surrounded himself with many other criminals, and scammers, etc. ALL with intent to defraud as a SOP business. INTENT is obvious.

This is exactly my issue here.

They are trying this case knowing it is questionable.

I agree it’s open and shut as far as the misdemeanor charges.

But you are admitting that you admire this because they are going for something you think is questionable under law.

This is pure lawfare and IMO an abuse of the system.

I would have expected better proof of the criminal cover up and some layer of proof of personal involvement with the decision making on Trump’s part to charge a felony.

Note I am agreeing he violated the law as a misdemeanor. In my mind this kind of conduct disqualifys him for my vote for president…

You have just admitted you like the idea of the courts being used for a political agenda.

If Trump had not run for president, would these felony charges ever been laid?

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
The difference now is that previous cases about his fraud were civil, with guilty findings or settlements.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/0....html?smid=url-share

https://abcnews.go.com/US/judg...ps/story?id=54347237

We already know he's a fraud in legal and political and a decent person aspects, etc. So, when we have a case in court dealing with fraud again but this time felony, what's the difference except the sentence?

Finding him guilty of misdemeanors under the law — Section 17-152 of the state’s election code would be too easy, with little consequence.

Finding he falsified records with intent to deceive while running for office, and taxes BTW, is a bit harder, but I admire the DA and prosecution for the balls to try the case.

And furthermore - Trump's CFO is serving time. Cohen, his fixer, served time. And he surrounded himself with many other criminals, and scammers, etc. ALL with intent to defraud as a SOP business. INTENT is obvious.

quote:

But you are admitting that you admire this because they are going for something you think is questionable under law.

This is pure lawfare and IMO an abuse of the system.

I would have expected better proof of the criminal cover up and some layer of proof of personal involvement with the decision making on Trump’s part to charge a felony.

Trials are usually fought over close questions. Cases that aren't close usually resolve short of trial. Trying a close case is not abuse of the system unless the prosecution doesn't believe their own evidence.

Here the key evidence is the testimony of Cohen. The man is a crook, a legal bully, and a thief. But Trump hired him. It will be up to the jury to decide how much weight to give Cohen's testimony.

My concerns are over the complexity of the legal issues vs the cost/benefit analysis of tryin President Trump over these issues.


Reasonable minds can disagree. That it is too close a call for me personally does not meant the prosecution is tainted w politics from the President and DNC. That is an unfounded conspiracy theory.

Again, give me a case that says the prosecution’s statement of the law that stated this subdebate was incorrect. Otherwise, take the hacks and go play on the Mary go round.

The prosecution team believes that they can demonstrate the case beyond a reasonable doubt.

The prosecution has survived directed verdict and who knows how many motions in limine.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
This is exactly my issue here.

They are trying this case knowing it is questionable.

I agree it’s open and shut as far as the misdemeanor charges.

But you are admitting that you admire this because they are going for something you think is questionable under law.

This is pure lawfare and IMO an abuse of the system.

I would have expected better proof of the criminal cover up and some layer of proof of personal involvement with the decision making on Trump’s part to charge a felony.

Note I am agreeing he violated the law as a misdemeanor. In my mind this kind of conduct disqualifys him for my vote for president…

You have just admitted you like the idea of the courts being used for a political agenda.

If Trump had not run for president, would these felony charges ever been laid?

Just because the case is "questionable" doesn't mean it's lawfare. Your first two sentences don't connect. IMO, none of the supposed "logical" sentences or ideas in your post really connect, but are close.

So, in your opinion Trump's conduct relating to this case violated the law as a misdemeanor and thus disqualifies him from earning your vote for president. In the NY case, Trump hasn't been charged with misdemeanor. But, your opinion in this regard is so close to agreeing that the felony charges, falsifying records with intent to deceive the conspiracy of another crime, is okay, per understanding the rule of law.

And, I absolutely did not admit that I like the idea of the courts being used for a political agenda. I like the idea of the courts doing their job despite political agendas.

If Trump had not run for president, and won BTW, (past tense) and during the same time period, falsified business records to cover up hush money for the sake of avoiding the harm public knowledge of that would do to his chances of winning, the acts he committed could not be construed as felonies, and the case now in NY would be moot. Falsifying business records, fraud, could lead to other charges, but the fact that Trump was running for the office of POTUS at the time he falsified the records, specifically with intent to hide extramarital behavior from public knowledge is the connected dots.

So, your question of would felony charges, directly linked to underlying misdemeanors, have been laid had he not been running for office at the time - the answer is NO.

This is where you and so many others get yourself confused and try hard to confuse us too. It's not that he's now running for office, again, that's tied in any way to the felony charges. It's the first time that's relevant. The second time is merely coincidental.

This whole idea that Trump, in particular, should not be indicted for apparent crimes because he's running for office again, and such matters should be decided at the polls rather than per the rule of law seems absurd. How is that not lawfare?

Trump has been lawfaring his whole adult life. Practically everything he has done and does is about beating the system and rule of law using lawyers as tools, with great success.

quote:

They are trying this case knowing it is questionable.

EXACTLY^^^

A prosecutor has an ethical responsibility in a case such as this…to only bring it if it is iron clad.

This lawfare is only going to bring more division and do more harm to the country.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

They are trying this case knowing it is questionable.

EXACTLY^^^

A prosecutor has an ethical responsibility in a case such as this…to only bring it if it is iron clad.

This lawfare is only going to bring more division and do more harm to the country.

Now you're an expert on a prosecutor's ethical responsibilities.

Talking out of your ass. Reasonable belief is what's required. Not iron-clad.

From the ABA:

A prosecutor should seek or file criminal charges only if the prosecutor reasonably believes that the charges are supported by probable cause, that admissible evidence will be sufficient to support conviction beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the decision to charge is in the interests of justice.

All of those elements are satisfied here. Especially in light of the fact that the charges were the result of an indictment by a NY Grand Jury that might have heard and seen more evidence and testimony than you.

quote:

...in a case such as this...

Translation: A case against Trump. We've never seen Lane get worked up over cases against other white-collar criminals.

Why didn't he get worked up over the case against Cohen, who was charged with the same offense?

The jury has jurred; results in 30 minutes.